2019 6.7 burned to the ground

Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.

ROy Siewerth

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Posts
9
Reaction score
20
Location
Lake in the Hills ,il
Ram Year
2013
Engine
5.7
any thoughts
I picked up my 2019 6.7l from the dealership after having the y78 HPFP recall completed
after stopping at home to pick up the wife and went to go shopping. after on the way home smoke started to come into the cab by the time i got to the side of the road smoke was billowing out of the hood. than the fire soon after needles to say I watched my 2500 burn to a pile of burnt steel. I drove the truck a total of 23 mile since i picked it up i really do not know my next step after I contacted my insurance and got the claim started any help would be greatly appreciated
 

Daw14

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2017
Posts
2,064
Reaction score
2,144
Ram Year
2014
Engine
5.7 hemi
Sorry for your loss ,good thing you and your family weren’t hurt. New truck time? Don’t give money to that dealer anymore , find a new one. I doubt you could find the cause , might have just been a coincidence.
 

crash68

ACME product engineer
Staff member
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Posts
10,771
Reaction score
16,888
Ram Year
2015
Engine
3.0 EcoDiesel
Good to hear no one was hurt.
With so few miles the engine barely up to operating temperature, if it wasn't something the caused by the recent work then it's quite the coincidence.
 

woojyee

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 2, 2015
Posts
309
Reaction score
89
Location
Nebraska
Ram Year
2022
Engine
Hemi 5.7 eTorque
I'd say the dealer needs to be on the hook for this. They worked on the high pressure fuel pump and the truck caught fire shortly after. Seems to be a correlation there. But as usual, you're gonna have to be the one to jump through hoops to get anything done
 

tjfdesmo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Posts
2,263
Reaction score
4,061
Location
AZ
My 2019 also burned down after the pump update, but it did go a couple thousand miles. Fortunately, I was by myself, and I was near my home, and not pulling the old toy hauler in six lanes of traffic. It was a super helpless feeling watching her burn down. The insurance company did not seem particularly interested in conducting an investigation.
 

Burla

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Posts
23,229
Reaction score
44,833
Ram Year
2010 Hemi Reg Cab 4x4
Engine
Hemi
WTF, they force you to do recalls if you want to reg your truck and if you do them your truck will burn to the freak'n ground, great. What are they say'n over at TDR? Take what the ins will give, then sue the dealer for any potential downfall? Max request on a smalls claims case, is an option. I'm pretty sure you were on the way to the bank with 5k in cash in the glove box too.
 

Burla

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Posts
23,229
Reaction score
44,833
Ram Year
2010 Hemi Reg Cab 4x4
Engine
Hemi
If I had a cummins, I would pass on this recall, apparently it is voluntary.

"Safety Defect/Non Compliance Description and Safety Risk

A high pressure fuel pump failure may introduce internally failed component debris into the fuel system potentially causing fuel starvation. Fuel starvation may result in an unexpected loss of motive power, which can cause vehicle crash without prior warning.

Repair Description

FCA US will conduct a voluntary safety recall on all affected vehicles to replace the HPFP, update the Powertrain Control Module ("PCM") software, and inspect and, if necessary, replace additional fuel system components."
 

tjfdesmo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Posts
2,263
Reaction score
4,061
Location
AZ
If I had a cummins, I would pass on this recall, apparently it is voluntary.

"Safety Defect/Non Compliance Description and Safety Risk

A high pressure fuel pump failure may introduce internally failed component debris into the fuel system potentially causing fuel starvation. Fuel starvation may result in an unexpected loss of motive power, which can cause vehicle crash without prior warning.

Repair Description

FCA US will conduct a voluntary safety recall on all affected vehicles to replace the HPFP, update the Powertrain Control Module ("PCM") software, and inspect and, if necessary, replace additional fuel system components."
The CP4 is a well known piece of garbage for a long time. I almost took a pass on buying my '19 because of it. GM had heartaches from 2011-2016, and left owners holding the bag. Ford built the 6.7 around it, and the old reliable CP3 won't even fit in the valley where it mounts, so those guys have been screwed, having to rely on "disaster prevention kits". They will soon have their salvation as S&S has developed a kit with a Stanadyne pump that will mount up.

While I think it sux that Ram and Cummins chose to save $$$ by going to the CP4, they are the only one to step up to the plate and recall them. Techs doing sloppy work is the issue, but Ram indirectly bears some blame by not paying enough time to do a sanitary job of it. And @Burla TDR is no longer the go-to place for CTD info that it was 20 years ago when I signed up, sadly. I dropped my subscription.
 

Attachments

  • 64983.jpeg
    64983.jpeg
    79.6 KB · Views: 20
Last edited:

BossHogg

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Posts
1,935
Reaction score
2,455
Location
Oakland Township, Michigan
Ram Year
2015
Engine
6.7L Cummins
While I think it sux that Ram and Cummins chose to save $$$ by going to the CP4, they are the only one to step up to the plate and recall them. Techs doing sloppy work is the issue, but Ram indirectly bears some blame by not paying enough time to do a sanitary job of it.
Is the CP4 less money than the CP3? I have no idea why RAM went to the CP4, for all I know, Cummins could have been the one that made the decision.

But as I understand it, the CP4 failures are more about how the software controls the CP4 pump. Green Diesel Engineering released a white paper describing, in great detail, the differences in how they manage the pump versus the factory software. Of course, the context was the Gen 3 ECODiesel.

Regardless, understanding how the software is involved with the CP4's operation sheds a clear light on how the failures occur. You can find the GDE white paper on just about every ECODiesel site. I can only assume the control software strategy for the CP4 used in RAMs Cummins or ECODiesel is likely the same or some facsimile.

Anyways, here is the white paper from GDE as it appears on many websites.


The CP4 Bosch fuel pump has been in the field since 2008 model year with European OEMs in both 1-plunger (CP4.1) and 2-pluger (CP4.2) configurations. It came to the US market in the 2011 model year used by the North American OEMs. Over the years there have been many failures of this pump due to the plunger rotating in the bore leading to the roller bearing grinding on the cam lobe and sending metal throughout the system. The design of the roller-bearing and cam lobe create inertial force on the plunger to keep it in the proper alignment and it should never rotate if the roller wheel and cam always stay in contact. However, there are situations internal to the pump when there is not enough downforce on the plunger to keep it in contact with the cam lobe. This is the core issue of why these pumps can fail.

Now, let’s discuss the internal operation of the pump. There are three operating modes: MPROP control, PCV control (bleed valve on high pressure fuel rail) and coupled pressure control (CPC). The MPROP is Bosch’s name for the fuel metering inlet valve, this controls how much fuel is delivered to the plunger chamber. During MPROP closed loop control, the PCV is over-closed and MPROP delivers the proper fueling to achieve desired pressure in the fuel rails. This method has been used since 2001 on the CP3 pump and is robust. When the accelerator is released the MPROP closes to decrease flow and the PCV opens momentarily to relieve excess rail pressure as the requested pressure is decreased.

The next mode of operation is PCV control. Here the MPROP is fully open and delivering max fuel to the pump plunger and the PCV regulates the fuel rail pressure in closed loop control by closing only enough to reach the desired rail pressure. The downside to this mode is that the high volume of fuel that is pumped into the rail and then recirculated out thru the PCV consumes a lot of power inside the pump and also generates a higher amount of heat. OEMs generally use the PCV-only control method when fuel temps are cold, in order to heat up the fuel faster. This control strategy is also employed on the CP3 and CP1/CP1H pumps.

On high power-density small displacement applications it is necessary to size the high-pressure pump to meet the fuel flow requirements at rated power. On applications with solenoid injectors there is an additional margin that must be included, due to the constant leakage from the injectors thru the backflow line. However, these small displacement engines have a very low fuel rate at idle which means just a very small flow of fuel thru the metering unit given that the fuel rate is low and also the rail pressure is at its lowest point when idling.

With consideration given to component tolerance, sometimes it is not possible to govern properly via metering-unit only control the rail pressure at idle or when coasting with a max tolerance part. This happens because the metering unit at its very first opening position flows more fuel than is necessary to meet the required demand. In the days of the Bosch EDC16 controller several OEMs would make a switch back to the PCV mode at very low fuel rates including coasting, to let the metering unit be open into a more controllable area.

With the EDC17 era was possible also a new mode called CPC (Coupled Pressure Control). This mode allows to prescribe a desired value for both the metering unit flow and also the rail pressure controlled via the PCV valve, leading both actuators to be under closed loop control via PID-governors (proportial, integral, and derivative components). The purpose of this is to allow the metering unit to operate in a more controllable flow rate but not pay the penalty of power consumption and heat rejection by full PCV mode. You can think of this mode as the PCV one but with lower flow rate thru the metering unit.

The OE calibrations for the EcoDiesel 2014 thru the present (both Gen2 and Gen3) all use this CPC mode as part of their calibration strategy. If you rev the engine while parked with the hood open, as the engine speed comes back to idle is very common to hear a prominent noise akin to gravel in a rock crusher or to an engine with solid lifter camshaft that has an incorrect valve lash. This noise happens as the metering unit flow is varied (via CPC algorithm) thru the pump and generally lasts for a number of seconds, sometimes going away and other times persisting indefinitely.

We surmise that during this transition period of flow rate that the noise is generated by a clearance that forms between the roller wheel and the pump’s camshaft. During normal operation (with the factory calibration), the pump operates in MPROP mode generally when under load but constant makes the transition to the CPC mode in light load and coasting situations. During that transition the MPROP has to make a large change in delivery almost instantaneously, leading to a loss of motion control within the valvetrain of the pump.

In all Green Diesel Engineering tuning we turn off CPC mode for EcoDiesel applications (GEN2 and GEN3). This seems to have significantly reduced potential for the plunger to lift off the cam lobe. Due to a persistent backflow from the solenoid injectors to the tank we find it is not necessary to use the PCV mode for fuel heating. Thanks to additional learning functions inside the software we find it is 100% reliable to run in metering-unit only control in 100% of operation. This eliminates the pump noise you hear in light/no-load transitory operation and offers the least amount of energy to drive pump which aids in fuel economy. Minimizing pressure disturbances internally in CP4 is the best method to maximize fuel pump life and minimize a catastrophic failure.

GDE tunes exhibit a much lower failure rate in the field. The only failures of the fuel system we have heard about entail putting gasoline in the fuel tank, putting DEF in the fuel tank, high water content in diesel fuel or running the system out of fuel (pump loses lubrication).
 
OP
OP
ROy Siewerth

ROy Siewerth

Junior Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Posts
9
Reaction score
20
Location
Lake in the Hills ,il
Ram Year
2013
Engine
5.7
the recall was the correct thing to do. If it would have failed the complete fuel system would get contaminated with metal plus being stranded who now where. And cant blame the dealer for a catastrophic failure of a part. The epic center was on the pump side of the engine . We were lucky to get to the side of the road and exit the truck before it engulfed in flames Im not sure if i can feel comfortable buying another diesel powered ram even tho the power and torque it has to haul ur camper is needed. Another side note is the talk about the grid heater relay failure even tho its not on the 19’s but not enough have been reported.

i did an incident report with NHTSA yesterday and will be contacting the corporate customer concern number tomorrow AF010A4E-6EF9-46E4-B768-91E991FABC1A.jpeg
 

tjfdesmo

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Posts
2,263
Reaction score
4,061
Location
AZ
Is the CP4 less money than the CP3? I have no idea why RAM went to the CP4, for all I know, Cummins could have been the one that made the decision.

But as I understand it, the CP4 failures are more about how the software controls the CP4 pump. Green Diesel Engineering released a white paper describing, in great detail, the differences in how they manage the pump versus the factory software. Of course, the context was the Gen 3 ECODiesel.

Regardless, understanding how the software is involved with the CP4's operation sheds a clear light on how the failures occur. You can find the GDE white paper on just about every ECODiesel site. I can only assume the control software strategy for the CP4 used in RAMs Cummins or ECODiesel is likely the same or some facsimile.

Anyways, here is the white paper from GDE as it appears on many websites.


The CP4 Bosch fuel pump has been in the field since 2008 model year with European OEMs in both 1-plunger (CP4.1) and 2-pluger (CP4.2) configurations. It came to the US market in the 2011 model year used by the North American OEMs. Over the years there have been many failures of this pump due to the plunger rotating in the bore leading to the roller bearing grinding on the cam lobe and sending metal throughout the system. The design of the roller-bearing and cam lobe create inertial force on the plunger to keep it in the proper alignment and it should never rotate if the roller wheel and cam always stay in contact. However, there are situations internal to the pump when there is not enough downforce on the plunger to keep it in contact with the cam lobe. This is the core issue of why these pumps can fail.

Now, let’s discuss the internal operation of the pump. There are three operating modes: MPROP control, PCV control (bleed valve on high pressure fuel rail) and coupled pressure control (CPC). The MPROP is Bosch’s name for the fuel metering inlet valve, this controls how much fuel is delivered to the plunger chamber. During MPROP closed loop control, the PCV is over-closed and MPROP delivers the proper fueling to achieve desired pressure in the fuel rails. This method has been used since 2001 on the CP3 pump and is robust. When the accelerator is released the MPROP closes to decrease flow and the PCV opens momentarily to relieve excess rail pressure as the requested pressure is decreased.

The next mode of operation is PCV control. Here the MPROP is fully open and delivering max fuel to the pump plunger and the PCV regulates the fuel rail pressure in closed loop control by closing only enough to reach the desired rail pressure. The downside to this mode is that the high volume of fuel that is pumped into the rail and then recirculated out thru the PCV consumes a lot of power inside the pump and also generates a higher amount of heat. OEMs generally use the PCV-only control method when fuel temps are cold, in order to heat up the fuel faster. This control strategy is also employed on the CP3 and CP1/CP1H pumps.

On high power-density small displacement applications it is necessary to size the high-pressure pump to meet the fuel flow requirements at rated power. On applications with solenoid injectors there is an additional margin that must be included, due to the constant leakage from the injectors thru the backflow line. However, these small displacement engines have a very low fuel rate at idle which means just a very small flow of fuel thru the metering unit given that the fuel rate is low and also the rail pressure is at its lowest point when idling.

With consideration given to component tolerance, sometimes it is not possible to govern properly via metering-unit only control the rail pressure at idle or when coasting with a max tolerance part. This happens because the metering unit at its very first opening position flows more fuel than is necessary to meet the required demand. In the days of the Bosch EDC16 controller several OEMs would make a switch back to the PCV mode at very low fuel rates including coasting, to let the metering unit be open into a more controllable area.

With the EDC17 era was possible also a new mode called CPC (Coupled Pressure Control). This mode allows to prescribe a desired value for both the metering unit flow and also the rail pressure controlled via the PCV valve, leading both actuators to be under closed loop control via PID-governors (proportial, integral, and derivative components). The purpose of this is to allow the metering unit to operate in a more controllable flow rate but not pay the penalty of power consumption and heat rejection by full PCV mode. You can think of this mode as the PCV one but with lower flow rate thru the metering unit.

The OE calibrations for the EcoDiesel 2014 thru the present (both Gen2 and Gen3) all use this CPC mode as part of their calibration strategy. If you rev the engine while parked with the hood open, as the engine speed comes back to idle is very common to hear a prominent noise akin to gravel in a rock crusher or to an engine with solid lifter camshaft that has an incorrect valve lash. This noise happens as the metering unit flow is varied (via CPC algorithm) thru the pump and generally lasts for a number of seconds, sometimes going away and other times persisting indefinitely.

We surmise that during this transition period of flow rate that the noise is generated by a clearance that forms between the roller wheel and the pump’s camshaft. During normal operation (with the factory calibration), the pump operates in MPROP mode generally when under load but constant makes the transition to the CPC mode in light load and coasting situations. During that transition the MPROP has to make a large change in delivery almost instantaneously, leading to a loss of motion control within the valvetrain of the pump.

In all Green Diesel Engineering tuning we turn off CPC mode for EcoDiesel applications (GEN2 and GEN3). This seems to have significantly reduced potential for the plunger to lift off the cam lobe. Due to a persistent backflow from the solenoid injectors to the tank we find it is not necessary to use the PCV mode for fuel heating. Thanks to additional learning functions inside the software we find it is 100% reliable to run in metering-unit only control in 100% of operation. This eliminates the pump noise you hear in light/no-load transitory operation and offers the least amount of energy to drive pump which aids in fuel economy. Minimizing pressure disturbances internally in CP4 is the best method to maximize fuel pump life and minimize a catastrophic failure.

GDE tunes exhibit a much lower failure rate in the field. The only failures of the fuel system we have heard about entail putting gasoline in the fuel tank, putting DEF in the fuel tank, high water content in diesel fuel or running the system out of fuel (pump loses lubrication).
Yes, I was told by a well known pump outfit that the CP4 is substantially less costly, and lighter. All one has to do is look at the two pumps disassembled side by side, and it is plain to see the CP4 is a poor design, from a longevity standpoint. The rest is putting lipstick on a pig.
 

Rlaf75

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
1,495
Reaction score
1,516
Location
East Hartford CT
Ram Year
2011
Engine
Hemi 5.7
Im not familiar with the cummins or the recall but I would've had it towed directly to the dealer and i would've started the complaint with them. Regardless of this being a recall or not and if this is a known problem the dealer and or manufacturer should be on the hook for this mess. I would use my insurance company as a last resort. Glad nobody got hurt. Good luck
 

stevenP

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Posts
644
Reaction score
627
Location
northern Indiana
Ram Year
2022 2500 Longhorn
Engine
6.7L Cummins
OMG, I think your that dealer should be involved for sure. Having that fire so soon after the recall, isnt a coincidence. Unlike another poster said here, if mine burnt to the ground like this, I doubt I would get another RAM.
 
Last edited:

BossHogg

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2014
Posts
1,935
Reaction score
2,455
Location
Oakland Township, Michigan
Ram Year
2015
Engine
6.7L Cummins
I picked up my 2019 6.7l from the dealership after having the y78 HPFP recall completed
after stopping at home to pick up the wife and went to go shopping. after on the way home smoke started to come into the cab by the time i got to the side of the road smoke was billowing out of the hood. than the fire soon after needles to say I watched my 2500 burn to a pile of burnt steel.
I'm sorry this happened to you. What is really going to suck is replacing the truck if you decide to do that. The MSRPs are going up faster than a Space X launch.

I watched a YT review of a Longhorn dually Cummins this morning, the MSRP was north of $100K.
 

Burla

Senior Member
Military
Joined
Apr 28, 2012
Posts
23,229
Reaction score
44,833
Ram Year
2010 Hemi Reg Cab 4x4
Engine
Hemi
The CP4 is a well known piece of garbage for a long time. I almost took a pass on buying my '19 because of it. GM had heartaches from 2011-2016, and left owners holding the bag. Ford built the 6.7 around it, and the old reliable CP3 won't even fit in the valley where it mounts, so those guys have been screwed, having to rely on "disaster prevention kits". They will soon have their salvation as S&S has developed a kit with a Stanadyne pump that will mount up.

While I think it sux that Ram and Cummins chose to save $$$ by going to the CP4, they are the only one to step up to the plate and recall them. Techs doing sloppy work is the issue, but Ram indirectly bears some blame by not paying enough time to do a sanitary job of it. And @Burla TDR is no longer the go-to place for CTD info that it was 20 years aho when I signed up, sadly. I dropped my subscription.
The mighty tdr has fallen hey? Gotta figure all good things are coming to an end these days.
 

zrock

Senior Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2022
Posts
270
Reaction score
295
Location
canada
Dam right your dealer is on the hook for this.. Obviously they did not connect a line properly and it was probably leaking. No way you or your insurance should be on the hook for this i would not let the dealer off the hook
 
Top